Email Luke Essays Profiles Archives Search LF.net Luke Ford Profile Dennis Prager July 23 Kobe Bryant's Accuser Kate Faber Debate About Online Standards An Un-Orthodox Divorce

Another Day At City Beat

Cecile du Bois writes:

I bet the graphic designer is glossing over this entry as I write.

"It is a universal truth that any man with a good fortune must be in want of a wife", begins Austen's novel Pride and Prejudice. In my words, it is "It is a universal truth that any young publication must be in want of an intern," so thats why I work three times a week as the intern for City Beat. I goofed off with my various bosses today, and they let me check me check my email and blog today, which was quite nice of them.

I am sad that Riordan won't get off his lazy ass to help start the LA Examiner which now looks more like a pipe dream. Ken Layne, I heard is on vacation. I suppose he's drinking a margarita and reading some groovy magazine as I speak. Matt Welch still blogs, and Emmanuelle does too. As usual, Steve Appleford, the editor of City Beat, lifted my spirits with news of a promising future in editorial meetings. (To be frank, I am much more interested in learning more about journalism than sorting ads, but at least I learned something!)

Cathy Seipp replies to her daughter: "I was thinking of you at the ever more alienating TV press tour today, and how lucky I am not to have one of those ordinary daughters like most people do. I find other daughters duller. Matt and Emmanuelle are still not blogging ENOUGH, and so we are left with nothing to read but Luke and his broomsticks."

Rape Story Too Graphic?

Cathy Seipp writes:

I'm going to tell you a little secret about journalistic ethics, both on and offline.

1. You do not have to publish every email every nutcase sends to you.

2. If something is so hideously graphic (re broomsticks etc) you are reasonably sure it will offend Cathy Seipp, this is a most severe violation of journalistic ethics and the fine is three weeks in the pokey doing Jayson Blair's laundry.

Just so you know.

PS. Very nice interview with Ivor Davis. But I shudder to think of Ivor, and his wife, scrolling down that particular page.

Randy writes from Utah:

I recently came upon your site from a link on another weblog or "blog" which I'm new to and I was very impressed with your extensive coverage of Bryant, but was shocked to notice that you would publish such a disgusting and unmanly letter from that "Mike" who clearly is not a fan of yours and just makes you look desperate for attention. I read your profile and was impressed with your interesting background. However, between us men, I would never publish such article of myself.

Dave Deutsch writes:

I don't know that it was too graphic. If anything, not graphic enough (how did the broomstick fill you with semen? A haunting question...) But seriously, the guy was trying to make a point about how rape differed from other forms of violence, and did a reasonable job of it. Just as reasonably, you let him have his say. The actual violence he depicted was fairly brief, and actually, not that graphic. Most of the graphic stuff was in depicting your physical condition after the fact, and hey, rape is graphic. Consider this to be a sign of your successful teshuva; three years ago, could you have imagined your friends being concerned that your website was too graphic?

You will concede, I trust, that many women would, in fact, be less likely to report a rape if they were going to be named in public. You will concede that there are plenty of people, men and women, who would stigmatize them. So by adopting the practice of regularly naming accusers in rape cases, you may keep women from reporting rapes, which means more rapists going free, which means more rapes.

Now, some of these rapists may then go and rape Orthodox women. Consequently, in answering the question, "Is naming the accusers in rape cases good for the Jews," we must answer unequivocally "no." You would, in fact, be an accomplice in the rape of pious daughters of Israel. Do you accept that responsibility?

Luke, from a desert wasteland, going from one father figure to another, fighting between his Dark and Light sides--I don't know who should be suing whom, but don't you think its about time you and George Lucas had a talk?

Black Jews Asked To Pray Elsewhere

From The Jewish Week:

Akedah Fulcher, an advocate on behalf of black Jews by choice, said the rabbi requested that three Young Israel congregants — all of them black — not attend Sabbath services at the new location.

In a letter to Rabbi Pesach Lerner, director of the National Council of Young Israel, of which Vanderveer Park is a member, Fulcher said she had learned that Rabbi Yehuda Levin of Khal Mevakshei Hashem — whose small congregation does not meet during the summer — was willing to allow the Young Israel congregants to use his air-conditioned synagogue temporarily “with the strict stipulation that no Jews of color attend.”

Rabbi Levin, an activist against gay rights and abortion who drew national headlines in 1996 for supporting ultra-conservative Republican Pat Buchanan for president...

Rabbi Levin feared “the presence of ‘weird-looking Jews’ in his shul would not be tolerated by the financial backers of his synagogue.”

In an interview, Fulcher noted that those contacted by the rabbi generally attended services in “Afro-centric” clothing.

Rabbi Spooky of Congregation Pencil Neck, NY, who simply wants to defend the integrity of the institution of the Shabbos Goy, responds to Luke:

What's the point of being jewish if you have to daven next to some shvartze? Besides, it is so easy to mistake a spook for the shabbos goy in that neighborhood, that the rabbi may simply have been building yet another fence around the torah. But faux jews like you revel in this sort of story.

A Chat With Journalist Ivor Davis, Who Traveled With The Beatles

I meet journalist Ivor Davis at the hospitality suite for the film Mondays in the Sun at the Four Seasons Hotel in Beverly Hills on 7/22/03.

A pile of journalists wait to interview actor Javier Bardem.

Ivor is a short dapper Jew from Britain. We help ourselves to the free eats before finding a table in the corner. I ask him about notorious Australian tabloid journalist Steve Dunleavy, now a columnist for the New York Post.

Ivor: "I met him when he was covering the Mansons for one of the Australian papers. He was always a hell for leather guy, larger than life, almost a cliché of a journalist. He used to come to our house for dinner and drink a lot. We said, 'You're not driving home.' We'd put him in a cab and send him back to his hotel.

"The Manson case had broken. I had some good interview material with some manson members. I was working for The London Daily Express. I was their correspondent on the West Coast. Steve said to me, 'I hear you've rented a plane to fly off to Independence, California, for the arraignment of Manson. If I pay my share, would you take me along?" I said fine.

"We got on the plane. Because England was eight hours ahead, I had filed a four-page story, setting it all up, with great quotes. Steve said, 'Could I have a look at your story, Ivor?' I said sure. We land. He had my story. We went into the little terminal. He was on the phone reading my story to his desk. 'I did this and he told me.' He just ripped the whole thing off.

"I never saw him write anything on the trip. He just read other people's copy. That was the way he was.

"When you do a website, is it a lucrative venture?"

Luke: "Lukeford.net is a labor of love but it opens up lucrative opportunities.

"Could you give me a brief biographical sketch?"

Ivor: "I was a reporter at age 16. In those days in England, you could become a cub reporter. I worked for a few papers. I used to do freelancing for the British dailies. There were a lot more of them then. I grew up in the East End of London. My father was a Polish baker. My mother grew up in England. We were a working class Jewish family. I was Bar Mitzvahed. My family kept kosher. We went to an Orthodox synagogue. I played soccer for the Association of Jewish Youth teams. I played for England in the Maccabee Game (a worldwide Jewish sporting competition). We won gold medals. When I came to America, I played for America in the Maccabee Games. We didn't win gold medals. I played soccer for about 30 years.

"I was a freelance journalist working here for Reuters and the London Daily Express. In 1964, the Express editor called me up. 'There's a new pop group coming over, starting in San Francisco. They are on the road for 34 days. We've signed one of them to do a daily diary and you will be writing it. So get on a plane to San Francisco.' They were from Liverpool. I can't remember the name now. Oh, it was the Beatles.

"So I spent 35-days with the Beatles. It was an incredible trip. The Express obviously liked what I did. They hired me as a staff correspondent on the West Coast.

"I came to America at age 20, five days after John Kennedy was elected president, which was November 1960. I worked on daily newspapers in Santa Monica, San Gabriel Valley, San Diego. A year in each town. Then I came up here to work for Reuters and then for the Daily Express. I covered the ballerina Dame Margeaux Fontaine when her husband, Roberto Arias, was paralyzed by an assassin. We went back to Panama with them when he was ready to take his seat in parliament.

"I did earthquakes, disasters, stuff like that. All the pop groups and the movie stars and the Peter Sellers death. I worked for the Express from 1964-79. It eventually went tabloid. It used to have 50 foreign correspondents.

The Times of London hired me for 13 years. By that time, I had a family and I did not want to travel. Southern California is like heaven for a journalist.

"My wife Sally Ogle Davis (married Ivor in November of 1967) used to be a BBC anchor woman in Northern Ireland. We were editors at Los Angeles Magazine for 20 years. I did one of the first big stories on Robert Evans. She wrote for The New York Times Sunday Magazine. With a magazine piece, you could 5000-word and get your teeth into. Normally a newspaper story ran 750-words. Wherever I went as a foreign correspondent for the Express, they'd only want 450-words. It was frustrating and that's why I left.

"My wife and I have two kids. One lives in Fort Worth, Texas, with our new grandson, age two weeks, and the other one lives in Seattle with her baby.

"For the past few weeks, I've been coming to the TV Critics conference. I write columns for the LA Times and NY Times syndicate. I freelance stuff for magazines for England and Australia. I like it that I can pick and choose. Most of the stuff NBC has is not very good. I pick out a Charlie Sheen or Timothy Buttons, who's playing President Bush for Lionel Chetwynd's 9/11 project for Showtime. Chetwynd is a charming man. He'll give you the shirt off his back. He's very conservative. He got to spend an hour with President Bush.

"How did you get hooked into Cathy?"

Luke: "I've the hugest fan of her columns for years and then I met her through the LA Press Club. I took her to my Orthodox synagogue Friday night and had her sit behind the mehitza (partition)."

Ivor: "My wife and I have strong feelings about that. We're active in our Reform synagogue. We've been on the board. Last Thursday, we all took a bus to The Producers, which is outrageously funny."

Luke: "I hear you're working on a book about Jewish movies?"

Ivor: "Only because having written about them for so long, I felt the need. There isn't that much. There are websites with Jewish movies. There was a recent book by a critic in Texas about the top 50 Jewish movies. I've been talking to people about what is a Jewish movie and a lot of people gave me diverse answers. Is a Woody Allen film a Jewish movie? Is Schindler's List a Jewish movie? Is The Man Who Captured Eichman A Jewish Movie? Are Israeli or Yiddish films Jewish movies? A lot of people said My Big Fat Greek Wedding is a Jewish movie.

"My younger brother Barry, a retired history professor, happens to be one of the preeminent Yiddish experts in London. He teaches at YIVO (Yiddishe Vissenschaftliche Organizatzia). He was hired by the Prudential Insurance company in London to evaluate Jewish insurance claims that were never paid off due to the Holocaust. So as a PR gesture, Prudential said they would pay off if it could be proved the policies were legit."

I examine Ivor's religious bonafides.

Luke: "Did you have separate seating for men and women in your childhood synagogue?"

Ivor: "Yes, but when I go now, I prefer to sit with my wife. My wife grew up in an Orthodox community in Northern Ireland, which is pretty much dead. She said they all went on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur and the ladies sat upstairs and they didn't get books."

Why would ladies need prayer books? They're not required to pray, only men are. Women are in shul to gossip and to rest between reproducing.

Ivor: "I went to a Bar Mitzvah last October in an Orthodox shul and the women were out of it. I'm sorry. I just felt terrible."

Luke: "They're gossiping. They're happy that way."

Ivor: "That's what used to happen in Northern Ireland. They'd sit around in their new hats and gossip."

Luke: "That's what God wants."

Ivor, with a smile: "Oh, well, of course.

"When I was growing up, the rabbi used to bash you over the head and pull your hair. I went back two years ago and took some pictures of the shul and two guys came running out. 'Why are you taking pictures?' They were paranoid about security. I said I was Bar Mitzvahed in this place. We kept kosher. I used to take the chicken to the shochet (slaughterer). All that stuff."

Luke: "How far you've fallen."

Ivor: "We used to make our own wine at Pesach. We'd get sour cherries and put them in the bath. Only problem is you couldn't take a bath for about two months."

That's no problem for an Englishman. That's normal practice.

Ivor: "You'd put sugar in the top and let it ferment. And three months later, you'd start putting it into bottles."

We return from fetish state of the unwashed English to Ivor's book.

Ivor: "I want it to be encyclopedic but that always conjures up visions of boredom. My wife has been working on a book for sometime that I am not allowed to tell you about. It's about an interesting woman in Southern California who's been all over the world."

Luke: "What are you picking up about how Hollywood is reacting to the Mel Gibson film The Passion?"

Ivor: "People say the guy is crazy. He's doing the film in Aramaic, who's going to see it? Warner Brothers may distribute it to keep Mel in the camp. If you read The New York Times Sunday Magazine, you read a major movie star's father coming out with the craziest things. In Mel's drinking days, he'd say, my father is the most influential person in my life. It's like the Hitler movie Max. There will be some interest. CBS did Hitler with Robert Carlisle. Who's going to see this film [The Passion]? It's purely an indulgence.

"Have you seen a religious film lately that's done all right?"

Luke thinks for a minute. "No.

"What are the biggest obstacles to you doing good entertainment journalism?"

Ivor: "Even the two major syndicates are only interested in stories about young people. They'll say, 'Do a profile of that girl in American Wedding or a piece on that young guy Orlando Bloom.' A lot of the magazines I send notes to about people I'm interviewing say, 'They are not out profile.' They skew to age 31 max. The stories I want to do and the stories that sell are different. When I get their magazines, I see who their audience is, and I said it's about time I quit.

"Covering all this showbiz stuff is pure candy floss. The stories I've enjoyed are a good murder, or a good profile piece on somebody. I get a kick out of investigative reporting. I'm a frustrated detective. I don't keep my clippings. I did a book before the Manson trial began and it's just vanished. I'd like to get out again with a new beginning.

"My wife and I tell journalism students that we run a sausage factory. We get the material and in our house, we make the sausage and sell them to people. After a while, you get tired of churning them out. You want to do something with more meat."

Luke: "What about dealing with publicists?"

Ivor: "I've had my battles. We were blacklisted by several publicists. About eight years ago, Sally and I did one of the ultimate pieces on Hollywood publicists called 'Flacks Fatale.' We blew the lid off all of these publicists.

"If my name came up for a junket after that, I'd get turned down about 20% because of that article. Publicists are now stronger than the studios because the publicists have the stars.

"At least PMK's Pat Kingsley is a person you can engage in dialogue. She sold her company to a big conglomerate."

Luke: "Has any publicist offered you sex or drugs to manipulate story?"

Ivor: "No. I missed all that excitement. I missed nubile young publicists throwing themselves at my feet. It's one of the things that I regret in my life that it never happened.

"It was different on the Beatles trip."

Luke: "A lot of women throwing themselves at you?"

Ivor: "Just for the purpose of getting to meet the Beatles."

Luke: "It wasn't you?"

Ivor: "No, even though I was younger and handsomer in those days."

Luke: "It wasn't your wonderful way with words?"

Ivor: "The first half dozen times, I thought it was my wonderful way with words. But then when I spoke with the other journalists, who didn't have as wonderful way with words as I did, I discovered it was normal course. That was about the only time that sex reared its ugly wonderful head."

Luke: "Was that the most wonderful time of your journalism career?"

Ivor: "I was much younger. I wish I had taken a camera. I wish I had taken notes. I wish I had kept my interviews. I just remember and I've written a couple of magazine articles since then. A lot of the photographers I was on the road with have brought out books of their pictures.

"I'm having a great time now. I'm looking forward to seeing my grandson again. I love my wife and we have a good time. We travel. We went to Australia and to Argentina and looked up the Jews of Argentina in December. It was a fascinating and sad situation. In Argentina, most of the middle class business people were Jews and they've been wiped out. It was sad to go to shul. There were non-Jews who came in at the end of the service and they gave 300 of them a free meal downstairs."

7/23: Ivor writes: "Dear Luke: The transcript seems fine. Just one important thing. My wife thinks I am much handsomer now than when I was young. So do what Martha stewart did with her phone messages--white it out. Just kidding, best regards ivor PS: I still like to sit with my wife in shul."

Disturbing Lessons Of Girth


[T]he average black woman today wears a size 2X, one that didn't exist 30 years ago and that corresponds to a 38-inch waistline. On the other hand, the average American woman wears a size 16 and has a 34-inch waist.

Sixty-six percent of black women are overweight, and 1 in 10 is "morbidly obese," more than 100 pounds overweight. (African-American men don't fare well either. Six in 10 are overweight, and 2 of those 6 are obese.)

Rape Victim Luke Ford

Mike Smith writes:

Luke Ford felt the cold steel of the knife blade against his throat as his rapist continued to plunge the large broom stick up his ass. Was he humiliated? Not one bit. Did he fill over powered, degraded or terrified by this rapist who out weighed him by 100 lbs and towered over him by a foot? Not one bit. As the rapist left him tied to the bed crying like a baby with his torn and bloody ......... up in the air for the police to see when they arrived, was there any thought to not reporting this crime? Of course not. And in the hospital when all the swabs where filled with the ....... leaking from ......... and the dectives had taken the pictures of his ............ did Luke want annonimity? Hell no, he went right out into the lobby and said look what that big black son of a bitch did to me and he bent over showing his ................ to the waiting reporters. When one reporter asked him if he feared for his life since the basketball star accused of raping him was already out on bail and had alot of powerfull people backing him, Luke said hell no, if I could have just got to my car keys i could have poked his eye out, well maybe i would have had to stand on a chair or something.

When one reporter brought up the news stories already hitting the internet about all the Basketball stars coming forward with their tales of sex with Luke, Luke just replied "hey is a jury going to believe, a bunch of rich and famous stars or me Luke with the Giant torn .......... In the coming months Luke loved to tell the story over and over and over again and man was his wife and kids proud of him every time he told it and poor little Johnny did get in a few fights at school when a kid told him his dad got what he asked for because of the tight jeans he was wearing and going into that hotel room knowing full well what it meant to go into a famous persons hotel room. And you know Luke could swear sometimes his wife looked at him like she thought maybe he did ask for it, that silk shirt he wore did show his nipples pretty plain.

Does this help at all to why a sex victim should not be identified?

Luke replies: No. I could've been humiliated and violently abused in all the ways you say above but sexually, and my name would've been released. There are a ton of humiliating criminal things that can be done to one, and the accuser's name is still released.

It's horrible to be victimized violently, whether it is sexual or not. Not naming the accuser simply perpetuates and increases the stigma of rape. I've never argued that rape is not so bad but if you don't want people to know about it, then don't bring the charge.

Dave Deutsch writes:

People seem to be overlooking the considerable evidence that the woman in question is herself engaging in criminal actions relevant to the case--this isn't simply a matter of impugning her sexual ethics, or her judgment, but in bringing to light statements she made which completely contradict the rape charge. The real story is not that she is an alleged rape victim, but an alleged perjurer.

This Mike Smith isn't terribly logical--after all, the basketball player, and your wife, would know your identity even if the media didn't publish your name. But you do still ignore one important point, which is that rape victims are blamed and considered "damaged goods" in a way which other crime victims aren't.

Again, the guy who gets jumped walking down the street at 1 AM isn't going to have people saying "Look, you go to a bar late at night, what do you think is going to happen? And who were these guys, anyway? He was probably coming on to them, and they didn't like it, so they kicked his ass. You can't expect me to believe that three complete strangers would simply attack this guy on the street without any provocation on his part." Why treat accusations of rape differently? Because alleged victims of rape are treated differently (and you yourself engage in treating them differently, so you can hardly deny it).

It is fair to ask why accusations of rape should be treated differently. I have given an answer, so at this point, you might want to try responding to it.

Luke replies: I'm sorry if I have been too busy transcribing our interview, thinking about God, and davening with Rabbenu Tam as well as Rashi tefillin to respond to you before now.

If one of my friends walked into South Central Los Angeles alone and got robbed and mugged, I would certainly assign him some responsibility. We do assign responsibility to other crime victims. If I went into a bar and started an argument that led to me getting beaten up, I'd have to shoulder some responsibility.

Dave replies:

Clever bastard, you know I can argue with either Rashi or Rabbeinu Tam, but I'm powerless against the two of them together.

Did I say stigmatizing? I meant stigmata-izing. but seriously, this "she went into his room, what did she expect" business is just wrong. Like you said, if you pick a fight in a bar, you deserve what you get. If you enter a bar, you don't. A guy who walks in south central and gets mugged will be called stupid--nobody will suggest, however, that he somehow merited the mugging, or that the mugging was a result of his own moral failings. Nobody will say "Look, what did you want the mugger to do? Here's this white guy parading in front of him with a rolex, fat wallet, etc--he was asking for it." The mugging victim is faulted only for stupidity, not consent. The implication that a rape victim is asking for it by going into the room is used to suggest that not only was she stupid, but that she implicitly gave her consent by going into the room. In other words, it isn't really rape.

If you think I'm being pedantic, simply consider what is actually used by defense attorneys. No defense attorney is going to argue that his mugger-client was lured into a mugging by the victim. Any good defense attorney will argue that his rapist-client was lured into the rape by the implied consent of the victim--if he thought she was willing, then he wasn't forcing her.

If all you want to do is say that it is generally stupid for a girl to go with a strange man to his hotel room late at night, and that it is likely to send to him the signal that she's interested in sex, I won't disagree. But without qualifying it, your comments merely fall into this "blame the victim" category, which implicitly excuses the guilty. Aren't you conservative types supposed to be opposed to that sort of morality?

Luke says: I've never suggested that a rape victim bears moral sin for tempting a man or stepping into his room. I've said it is unwise and irresponsible of her.

Dave replies:

I remain right that rape victims are treated differently (I think I've proven my point there) and so their names should be kept quiet. As far as stigma goes, surely you must concede that while you, having accepted the divine justice and wisdom of our holy Torah, would never do such a thing, not everyone is such a tzaddik? While there is perhaps some merit in living such a saintly life that you cannot imagine that others would do evil, nonetheless, we must live in this world, and accept that not all would behave so nobly.

Lori Dunn writes on OJR.org forum:

The 19 year old girl is just as guilty of a crime as she is trying to make Kobe. That girl slept with a married man just like he slept with her. He is not the BAD guy, as if this stuff hasn't happened to anyone before, unfortunately he was caught and she wants to be paid. Listen, if you can accuse someone of sexual assult, if it truly is assult, then she should be able to show her face and not hide, that is the main reason why I don't believe her. There is NO WAY I could stand quietly knowing I was assaulted. That girl has truly bitten off more than she can chew and I want to know, what pray tell was her "innocent ass" doing in the man's room anyway? That alone is misleading. If you're not giving up the boots you need to keep your "sweet, innocent, scandalous ass out of men's rooms.

Retraction & Apology To Marty Singer

Luke Ford, and everyone associated with lukeford.net, offer their sincere apologies to Martin Singer for our inexcusable conduct in posting false information, accusations and implications directed towards Mr. Singer. The true facts are that Mr. Singer is not in anyway connected with or involved in the Grand Jury investigation concerning Mr. Pellicano. Mr. Singer has not been subpoenaed by the Grand Jury, and has not retained the services of any criminal attorney. Mr. Singer is a highly regarded and respected member of the California State Bar, whose ethical conduct has been beyond reproach, and we apologize for any statements and implications to the contrary.

Releasing Name of Bryant's Accuser Stirs Debate on Online Standards

Mark Glaser writes on ojr.org:

LAObserved's Kevin Roderick, who worked at the Los Angeles Times as a reporter and editor for 20 years, is opposed to naming the accuser or even linking to sites that name her. He pointed out the irony of her information being on the Web while Bryant's e-mail address, phone number and home address are not. Roderick is locked into a heated debate with fellow L.A. blogger Luke Ford, who used to cover the porn business online -- Drudge-style.

Ford argues that times have changed and that women have the power to wreak havoc by bringing charges. He said the name of the accuser should be in the media. "But I was appalled to see her home address and everything online," he added. When I asked Ford how he would feel if the victim was a friend, he admitted that "I wouldn't feel the same. I would want to protect my friend. But I don't expect the world to bend to my will."

Roderick and Ford have differing views of online journalism ethics as well. Ford compares the power of Web sites to offline media as a water gun to a real gun. He thinks instant corrections or deletions online makes standards different.

Kevin Roderick replies on LA Observed from the Olympian heights of a former Los Angeles Timeser who believes in sanitizing the news:

When Mark wrote that I'm locked in a heated debate with Ford, I looked to my left, then my right, and thought: who me? In a post here I tweaked Ford and others for their personal ethics in linking to the woman's email, address and other personal data, and I scoffed at his claim that he was acting in response to 30 years of feminist media. But I posted maybe five comments in the long thread, and one of them announced my early and I thought gracious exit from the blather. That didn't stop Ford from wanking away in that thread and another where he fantasized some Fordian nonsense about me. Debate? Uh-uh. As I told Glaser, you don't debate with fanatics on the Internet. Ford was being given his due -- which is to say, he was being ignored, by me and by others.

I've still taken no position on the big questions being bandied about in the Bryant case...

Notice how Kevin tweaks others for their lack of ethics, scoffs at outrageous claims, deigns to comment only five times, waits to take positions on the weighty questions bandied about by his inferiors, and then makes his early and gracious exit from the frothing rage while poor ol' Luke wanks, fantasizes nonsense, and debates like a fanatic.

Girls Play Here

Strolling by my park, I saw this black banner:

Raise the Bar
City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation & Parks

Girls Play Here

Achieving gender equity through a continuous commitment to girls and women in sports

That's stupid. Males are more physically aggressive than females and hence have a greater need for sports.

Lets Talk About Race and Rape

I was having dinner the other night with a liberal female Jewish prosecutor. She agreed that the accuser in a sex crimes should be named along with the accused.

Then I followed up on more dangerous ground, which I thought long and hard about putting on my site: "Women need to be more responsible. You don't go alone to a man's room unless you're up to having sex, particularly not to a young black male athlete's room."

Let's be honest. You wouldn't want your daughter in America today walking alone and unarmed through an area filled with young black men.

Sports Illustrated ran a devastating article a couple of years ago about the irresponsible sexual behavior of pro basketball players.

Few white men find dark-skinned black women erotically attractive. Few white men rape black women.

Black men love their white women and tend to be as happy as a German in Paris. Thus there are thousands of cases of black men being convicted each year of raping white women.

The illegitimacy rape among blacks is about 80%, among white it is about 30%.

Parts of black culture, such as much of the rap culture, celebrate violence and rape. About a quarter of black men Kobe Bryant's age have been to prison. Yet I'm sure that many white parents would hesitate to warn their daughters about black men.

Of course there are tens of thousands of wonderful law-abiding God-fearing black men and a higher number of vicious criminal white men but we have to face the painful statistics.

A New York Liberal Writes about the Plight Of Black Women:

A great deal has been published in recent years on the disparity of rates of miscegenation that I refer to. The Washington Post has published quite a few articles on the preference black men show for lighter-skinned women in their choice of mates, and if you Google, I'm sure you will find the articles. One article which references several of these sources is here. Or, if you are a bit more ambitious, you could look up the census information yourself.

As for the origin of lighter skinned black women, have you forgotten that once all black women here were owned by white men? A white man out on the farm with nothing to do could get drunk on a Saturday night, call any colored woman over to the Big House, and presto - nine months later you had a lighter skinned black person. The fact that those white men whose moral character was such that they owned human beings the way you or I might own goldfish would occasionally screw/rape one or more of them does not prove a preference for black women, even among slavers. These degenerates screwed black women because that's all they could own.

This David cannot be as ignorant as his assertions make him out to be, can he? The average preference for lighter skinned mates over darker skinned mates, at least in this country (and in ancient Rome and Greece) has been noted many, many times by many, many commentators. It reflects what one sees walking down the street, too. (How often do you see a white man with a black woman? How often do you see a black man with a white women? Judge for yourself!) It reflects what you see on Spanish language television, where all hispanic women look like they might be Catherine Zeta-Jones' sisters. I'm not sure if David has any white male friends, but among mine, the discussion of which women are the hottest just never seems to include any black women. And while a number of my friends have taken an asian woman for a wife, none has married a black woman. I'll bet its the same for most of your readers. None of this is good for America's Black Women, who tend to be socially conservative Christian women and would love to marry a black man. Miscegenation makes things that much harder for them.

Dave Deutsch responds:

As usual, Mr. Amalek doesn't really do much to counter my comments. Saying "those degenerates screwed black women because that's all they could own" misses the point--many of them were already married to white women. If their preference for white women was so strong, why not just schtup their wives?

A New York Liberal Who Marched In Selma Writes: Oy vey, is this guy for real? Are you sure he has a penis?

Despite their access to white women, they, like the men who frequented (and still frequent) black prostitutes, apparently didn't get the memo. Why doesn't Mr. Amalek go to some of the prostitute strips in New York and see how many white guys are getting blow jobs from black and hispanic hookers?

A New York Liberal Who Marched In Selma Writes: I don't hang out with hookers. But I do know that black hookers cost substantially less than white hookers. (Luke, you know all about this. Clue your friend in on the basic facts.) The demand side just isn't as strong as it is for whites. (By the way, the black hookers one sees on the streets of New York are the absolute dregs of New York, often drug-addled trannies and crack-whores. And such white men as may frequent them are not exactly the flower of the white race, either.)

I looked at the census data--while black men have considerably higher marriage rates with whites than black women, both Asian women and hispanic women have higher intermarriage rates than Asian or hispanic men. There are certainly no shortage of white guys with the hots for Asian girls.

Folks, re-read that comment again - David concedes the point. I am speaking of black/white couplings, and I believe I made this clear. Faced with facts that do not support your position, you are trying to obfuscate the issue by bringing in other races, when that isn't what the discussion is about. Even you acknowledge that black men are far more apt to take white wives than white men are to take black wives, and that's the core of the argument that miscegenation is disadvantageous to black women.

As for ancient Rome and Greece, all he does is reinforce my point, which has to do with the exotic being erotic. For people in the Mediterranean, blondes were exotic. For northern Europeans (and I notice he doesn't address the points I made about Germany and Poland), Jews were exotic.

Black women were "exotic," as they had to be imported from Africa from lands beyond the borders of the Roman Empire. And there have always been blondes here and there among the people of Italy. They could get still more blondes from their own lands within their empire just to the north of the Alps(Helvetia, Germany, Gaul). But the blacks were given the shit work to do, and the hot blondes were shown the bedroom. (Even in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics, the slaves doing the heavy lifting are often depicted with the darkest pigments.)

Even Luke Ford admitted recently his own preference for black chicks--a preference he shared with Moses, whose wife was, after all, a Kushite (and let's not forget Solomon and Sheba).

Yes, the biblical fables concerning Moses and his choice of mate (who, by the way, was a shiksa) are laudible. I just wish the rabbinate acknowledged what those fables meant to convey (that marrying shiksas is fine).

I have no problem with saying that lots of African-American men want white women. That's hardly a major revelation. I have a problem with these broad generalizations like "The preference for men of all races for lighter skinned women is well documented." and making such comments without putting it in a broader social context (or at least a social context of broads).

Almost all my male friends are white (although I like the bizarre implied accusation that they wouldn't be...and therefore?) I know two couples in which the man is white and the woman is black, another in which the man is white and women East Indian, another in which the man is Anglo-Peruvian and the woman Peruvian Chinese (I'm not sure where that fits, but it sounds interesting, doesn't it?) I suspect there there will be considerably more black woman/white man relationships in time for the next census (get working on this, Luke).

As for spanish tv, most of the girls on Sabado Gigante have much better bodies (more zaftig) than Catherine Zeta Jones (who is a very good looking woman).

We are talking about skin color here, are we not? The fact is that Spanish language television could just as easily have found dark skinned women with equally striking bodies (I think). But they invariably choose to use the lightest skinned women they can find. The dark ones need not apply. They seem to know what they are doing, as their shows are quite popular. (Although I think liberals should be protesting this blatant racial discrimination. For the record, I condemn racial preferences in hiring. Once again, the dark skinned woman is left with no one to defend her.)

Which leads me to what really troubled me: your comment that you and your friends don't discuss which black women are hot. Racism is evil--but when your bigotry blinds you to the beauty of a good looking woman, well, that's just pathetic.

This is how the world really is. The average white man finds the average white women to be more sexually desirable than he finds the average black woman. That's the main reason why so few white men marry black women (in contrast to asians, who are much sought after), and this is especially true of high status males. That's why black whores charge less than white whores (Luke, you KNOW the facts on this one); that's why for every ten black men you see on the street with a white woman, you see maybe three white men with black women. This pattern of racial preferences works especially harshly against black women, whom few seem to care much about.

You know, I always get a kick out of liberal jews who argue on behalf of mixed marriages for everyone else, even as they struggle to limit exogamy within the Jewish community. Their position is that while tribal purity is necessary for Jews, it must be denounced and discouraged with respect to the goyim. (This is of a piece with supporting open immigration into America, while defending the extremely exclusionary Zionist "law of return" for Israel.)

The world is not as you or I want it to be. White people are at least as conscious of being "white" as torah jews are of being jewish, or as black nationalists are of being black, and with equal justification. Jews who think that they can get away with supporting one set of standards for their community (and Israel) while urging a very different set on western nations that have given them succor are in for a terrible, terrible shock: the goyim are not as dumb as you think.

Dave Deutsch replies:

Chaim Amalek writes:

I am speaking of black/white couplings, and I believe I made this clear. Faced with facts that do not support your position, you are trying to obfuscate the issue by bringing in other races, when that isn't what the discussion is about.

Prior to that, he wrote: "The preference for men of all races for lighter skinned women is well documented." [Italics added for those people who wouldn't otherwise be able to understand why this statement is relevant]

Now, I'll concede that I'm not a big fan of deconstructivism, so it may very well be that when he wrote "men of all races," he did not, in fact, mean "men of all races." Consequently, my "bringing in other races" to discuss "men of all races" may have been wrong. If he can explain how "men of all races" actually means (and means clearly, by his account) "black men," I'll happily apologize. If not, then I would expect him to apologize for the above allegations, restate his position, and I'll respond from there. It seems silly to have a discussion when one participant, for whatever reason, refuses to support the comments he initially made, and then insults the other participant for having the temerity to actually call him on that. I thought conservatives were supposed to accept responsibility for their actions?

Dave Deutsch Sets Us Straight

Dave Deutsch writes: As usual, when Chaim Amalek discusses race (which is about all he discusses), he gets it wrong.

The preference of men for lighter skinned women is well documented? That's fascinating. Where does he think these lighter skinned black women came from? Does he imagine that they simply bleached over the course of time? Somehow, despite this "well documented preference," countless white men schtupped black women throughout American history. Many of these were men who had white wives, and/or access to other white women (should we presume that Thomas Jefferson couldn't have found a white woman to sleep with him had he desired to?) While it may not be "well documented," there's not shortage of evidence for it--the light skinned black women he mentions are ample enough evidence. But if he wants documentation, there are certainly plenty of slave narratives that discuss it. Also, in New Orleans, there were a number of elite brothels staffed entirely by light skinned women who catered exclusively to an elite white clientele, and many accounts of the black urban demimonde (I'd recommend Iceberg Slim's books--start with Pimp) discuss the white men who would furtively enter the ghetto for sex with black prostitutes--again, many of them married, and who would have access to white prostitutes if they so desired.

Amalek's discussion, as usual, also leaves out any context, thus reinforcing the stereotype of black man having a voracious appetite for white women (a stereotype that began, of course, at a time when white men in the south were committing frequent acts of rape against black women--about as textbook a case of projection as you can find). White women to many black men are, of course, a status symbol (like shiksas to Jews). They also represent a way of revenge (the ultimate grudgefuck, so to speak). Also, traditionally, in American culture, the standard of beauty has been to favor light skin over dark (just as there are plenty of Jewish men and women who believe blond hair and blue eyes are the ultimate beauty markers). Socially, there are also some things to consider--many visible upper class black men--like pro-athletes--move in a largely white world. Going to a largely white college, or being in a largely white business environment, they associate more frequently with whites, period (at the university of Wisconsin when I went there, I think the black student body was probably less than 2%, out of over 20,000 undergrads--so who else are the black athletes going to date?). Finally, if you want to look at it in simple evolutionary biological terms, one might argue that in American society, dark skinned men would naturally prefer light skinned women, simply because their offspring would have a better chance to survive and thrive (and during segregation, achieve the ultimate success of being able to pass).

Finally, there is simply the attraction of the exotic. The comment about men favoring light-skinned women is certainly not born out by the Jewish experience. While Jewish men in American media may depict Jewish women as shrill, unattractive harridans (great example of this can be found in "City Slickers," where the Daniel Stern character, emasculated by his obviously Jewish wife, finds redemption and masculinity with the blond haired, blue eyed shiksa--ironically played by the Jewish actress, Helen Slater), Jewish women have traditionally been viewed by non-Jewish men as being beautiful, alluring and exotic. Aside from the famous fictional cases of beautiful Jewesses (Ivanhoe, Merchant of Venice), in Germany and Poland, where the Christian women are about as light-skinned as you can get, Jewish women were considered to be the bomb (watch the movie Shoah and catch the reminiscences of the Poles in the town of Chelmno--if memory serves, the men didn't miss the Jewish men, but they sure mourned the loss of the Jewish women). So much for the well documented preference.

The best part is that the very example that set Amalek off actually contradicts his point. Kobe Bryant's wife has an Anglo father and a Mexican mother--apparently, he wasn't aware of what his preferences were supposed to be. And so while Vanessa Lane is definitely not black, her mother (judging by here own coloring and features) is definitely not white.

As for the issue of naming rape victims, Luke, you are wrong. There is a difference between rape and other crimes, simply because of the very point you make to defend the practice--stigmatizing the victim. If somebody gets his car stolen, the worst people will say is that he's stupid. The worst a rape victim could face is (at least in some societies) being murdered in an honor killing. Even backing away from that extreme, there are plenty of people like you who will blame the woman, and, even if she isn't blamed, will see her as damaged goods. Rape, unlike car theft, is an attack against a person, not property. That in and of itself is sufficient to approach it differently. If anything, it probably falls under some sort of "loshon hora" guideline.

And your reference to "many" victims of rape being in part responsible is sufficiently vague enough to be meaningless. How many rapes occur because a woman went to a man's hotel room? Is that how most rapes occur? You know very well it isn't, so all you're doing is setting up a straw man. If you want to qualify things, then do so from the start--say "Those rapes in which x occurs..." Don't begin with a general statement about rape, and then use a fairly specific--and infrequent--example to support your argument. Women are raped in their homes, and parking garages, and parks--should women not park their cars, or walk in parks (parks, lets say, where there is no history of rape)? And what does "going to a hotel room" mean? There is going there at 2 AM after a night of drinking, and there's going there at 9 PM because the guy wants to change his shirt. If you're not going to have rachmones [mercy], at least have some seichel [wisdom].

Now, this is not to say that there is never a time to discuss the "victim." If, as in the case of Kobe Bryant, the alleged victim has engaged in behavior that casts considerable doubt on her allegations, it is a story. That doesn't mean that she sleeps around--it means that she makes comments suggesting that things didn't happen as she claims. If this women is going to be going around talking about how she had consensual sex with him, that is directly relevant to the case.

Naming a rape victim might not be loshon hora [evil speech]--might be rechilus [petty speech]. Check your al cheyts [prayer for forgiveness] at Yom Kippur--I'm pretty sure you'll find something. I would say (you know, as the ultimate arbiter of morality in our time) that it's something to be avoided as not being particularly menschlich [good person].

Anyway, this rape-victim thing is another point at which I often find cultural conservatives to be in need of a hypocrisy check. When Korean merchants in South-Central had their stores looted and burned out, I don't recall too many people saying "Well look, what do you expect? They open stores there, they get what they deserve. What did they think would happen?" or when a couple's house is robbed while on vacation "Well look, most robberies occur when the family is gone. If they didn't want to be robbed, why did they go on vacation?" No, in those cases, opponents of "moral relativism" will be firm--responsibility belongs to the criminal. But a woman gets raped, and suddenly, you have all kinds of questions being asked about her behavior. "Wait a minute, she went out with the guy, wearing a short dress? What did she think was going to happen?" Personal responsibility no longer rests with the criminal. Gosh, how could he have possibly acted otherwise, I mean, she was wearing a short dress and went home with him for a drink.

Now, to be sure, coming over for a drink is often a prelude. But it's not a signed contract. Maybe she comes over, thinking "this guy's pretty good looking," and gets into his bathroom, and finds his VD medication. Maybe she notices his collection of scat fetish magazines. Maybe she's creeped out by his constant references to the martyrdom of Jeffrey Dahmer. Maybe she just gets tired. Point is, going to a guys apartment, or even hotel room, is not a criminal action, and women who do it and get raped shouldn't be viewed as accessories, any more than guys who drive cabs late at night, or wear nice watches should be viewed as accessories if they get robbed. Those are not mitigating actions. The truth is that many, if not most, crime victims did something stupid, or careless, which, had they not done so. They parked in a bad spot, they forget to lock their bike wheel, they should have taken in the paper, etc. etc. Rape victims are no different in that regard, so arguing that they bear any greater responsibility for their victimization seems to me to be an untenable double standard, particularly since, as noted before, the repercussions of the crime are that much greater. Anyway, baby crying, gotta go.

Kobe's Kate Brags

From N.Y. Daily News: Kate Farber, the woman accusing Kobe Bryant of rape bragged about the alleged assault at a party last week - and gave a graphic description of the NBA star's anatomy, partygoers said.

Steve Evancho told NBC News that he was surprised when the 19-year-old woman showed up at his house party on July 15 - three days before prosecutors slapped Bryant with sex assault charges. "She was bragging about the whole thing," Evancho said, adding that the woman seemed "happy. She was having fun."

She even answered a question about the 6-foot-7 L.A. Lakers star's manhood, five people at the party told NBC. "She answered with a gesture and a description," said NBC correspondent Michelle Hofland. "They couldn't believe it."

From Media News about binaryreport.com:

Denver Post
Tom Leykis, who believes Kobe Bryant is innocent, is naming the NBA star's 19-year-old accuser on his drive-time program. "The arrogance and the gall of journalists to call up and say I'm violating her privacy," says Leykis. "I've never called her house or gone to her front door. If the reporters hadn't gone to Eagle and written these specific stories with all these friends and their last names, I wouldn't have been able to do it."
> Overholser: It's time we named the accused and the accuser (Poynter)
> Philly Inky editor says no-names policy may have outlived usefulness (PI)
> Cook: Kobe case separates respectable news sources from junk (Flak)
> Some websites have ID'd wrong woman as Bryant's accuser (Rocky MN)
> Kobe case has been "grossly overcovered," says Janensch (HartCourant)

Cameron Diaz wants to keep her breasts to herself

Nat writes: WHEN Hollywood actresses spend half their life competing to show as much flesh as they possibly can, why do they spend the other half trying to preserve their modesty?

This story is weird because there are already tons of nude photos of Cameron Diaz on the web.

From the New York Daily News:

The Charlie's Angels star is claiming that topless photos she posed for back in her prefame days were allegedly used in an attempt to blackmail her, and now she's fighting back in court. Diaz has filed a motion seeking an injunction to stop photographer John Rutter from publishing the steamy photos and video footage taken when she was 21.

Furthermore, per a statement from Diaz's camp released Tuesday, the thesp's reps accuse the shutterbug of forging her Jane Hancock on a photo release to sell the snapshots to the highest bidder after Diaz rebuffed his extortion attempt.

"Cameron Diaz has filed a legal action, seeking an injunction regarding photographs taken at a private modeling session over a decade ago," said the written statement. "In the lawsuit, Diaz claims she did not sign a photo release and that the release produced by the photographer is a forgery. A criminal investigation is pending."

According to Rutter, the actress has misinterpreted his motives. He claims to have given her first dibs at the topless pics, which have since sparked a bidding frenzy from Hustler magazine, among others, reaching $3.5 million. "At no time were there ever threats or ultimatums," he told the New York Daily News Monday. "It was lawyers talking with lawyers."

He asserts that his lawyer was in negotiations with Diaz's attorneys about "a payment plan, tax information, the whole nine yards," and also denies the forgery accusation.

Rutter also claims to have received a "written proposal" from Diaz's attorneys to buy the images just hours before the Los Angeles District Attorney's Bureau of Investigations searched his Venice, California, apartment June 30. "It was a full-on raid," Rutters told the Daily News. The D.A.'s office confirmed that materials were seized as part of an ongoing investigation but that no charges have been filed. The photo shoot in question reportedly took place prior to Diaz's big-screen debut in 1994's The Mask. "She is topless, wearing interesting outfits," said Rutter Monday.

Now an A-list actress who commands $20 million per flick, the blonde babe got her start as a teen model--working in Japan and France.

XXX says: The National Enquirer ran a story a couple of weeks ago about Cameron Diaz taking some clothes off for pictures before she got famous. The DA's office and the LAPD went over to the place in Venice June 30 and took the photographer's doors off the hinges, that kind of thing. Diaz is represented by Lavelly and Singer. This photographer has a legit release for the pictures. He was just negotiating with her "security guy" for a sales price. They accuse him in an underhanded way of extortion. They're not going to file criminal charges. They got the cops involved to fix where the photographs are so that if they win in civil court, the photographs can be immediately had. The photographer can't flee the country with them.

Cameron's security guy is Avi Korein. He's an Israeli who's done a lot of work for Marty Singer. Avi has an office on Wilshire Boulevard in Beverly Hills. He's been credited for his work as a bouncer and security guard in many films.

Azindn writes: "If she doesn't want to be photographed naked, keep your clothes on. So, it must be she wants money. I'm always surprised at celebs who know they posed naked back when, and then act surprised or outraged when the photogs drag out their shots after the celeb has become a big name. It's a commodity culture and the celeb was selling their comoditities. In the US this kind of publicity is so typical. This society is so hung up on tits and nudity."

Rape is not comparable to other crimes

Jeffrey Lewis writes: Rape is not comparable to other crimes. It is vastly under reported compared to other crimes. Moreover, other crimes do not entail as much "victim blaming." For example, nobody tells a carjacking victim who drives a nice looking car that he/she was asking for trouble. Finally, the adverse consequences to any victim who falsely or truthfully reports a rape (via having a defense attorney question every aspect of the victim's life before, during and after the rape), is likely a big deterrence to not bring false accusations. Perhaps the answer lies in stiffer penalties for false rape accusations that are demonstrably made in bad faith?

Luke replies: I do not find these arguments convincing. So what if it is vastly under reported compared to other crimes? How reliable are those statistics? There's nothing wrong with learning from a bad experience and not making a criminal case out of it. So what if other crimes do not entail as much "victim blaming." Many "victims" of rape stupidly placed themselves in danger, and while not morally culpable for the evil that befell them, they do bear some responsibility. If you go to a guy's hotel room and you do not want to have sex, you're being stupid. The adverse consequences to someone bringing a false rape charge frequently will not equal the harm done to those falsely accused.

LA Observed Kvells Over Tim Rutten Column

Kevin Roderick of is happy to find his type of thoughtful responsible coverage of the Kobe affair in Wednesday's "On Media" LA Times piece by Tim Rutten.

Tim McGarry writes LA Observed: "I'm glad to see that he refuses to endorse the disturbing kind of stunt pulled by Tom Leykis and Luke Ford. Rutten's right, let the courts make the necessary decisions about the accuser's privacy, not tendentious media types pandering to the crowd. It is lack of media restraint that has generated much of the unfairness to both Bryant and his accuser."

Roger Simon writes LA Observed: "I am not unsympathetic to Luke Ford's views posted elsewhere on this site. Ford is more militant on this issue than I am (hey, he's younger!) but he sure has a point about things being tilted unfairly against Kobe."

Desi writes LA Observed: "How can you tell what his views are? He's told so many different stories now to justify his actions that I'm dizzy. The rants he makes up against L.A. Observed are just bizarre and make him sound like a nut case."

Luke says:

I'm tired of this "innocent until proven guilty" mantra repeated by Rutten and the respectable media. This only applies legally.

Kobe may well be innocent yet found legally guilty or vice versa. A court ruling is not equivalent to truth. Juries are not necessarily better forums for establishing truth than Joe Blow in his living room.

To begin with, most jury members are morons drawn from the dregs of society. Witness the OJ Simpson criminal trial, where a double murderer was found not guilty because he was black. I've served on juries where the blacks will not convict a black no matter what the evidence. This is common.

People reading about the Kobe case have a moral right to opine on this case to their heart's content, as do talkshow hosts. According to the evidence revealed in the media so far, in my opinion, anyone who definitively states Kobe is guilty or innocent is a moron. You can read about Kobe's accuser at www.binaryreport.com.

Should Online Journalists Be Held Accountable To The Same Ethical Standards As Regular Journalists?

I argue no.

Cathy Seipp says: "My answer would be, yes, online journalists should be held to the same standards as offline journalists. But it is a naive question, because of course offline journalists are not held to a single standard. Some mags and papers have factcheckers, some don't; Some use of anonymous sources, some don't. Etc. The one standard is that journalists will always call you "unethical" if you write something they don't like."

Khunrum writes: "Independent Online Journalists? There must be 6 trillion bloggers or sites out there covering every topic under the sun. Most don't collect a penny for their efforts. It seems like more of a vanity issue. Come now Luke, do you consider all these people Independent Online Journalists? I think a journalist must have some type of validity. Be working for a news organization. Maybe a stringer reporting the strife in Monrovia and getting shot at. Errol Flynn's son Sean who disappeared in the jungles of Laos covering the Vietnam War was a certified journalist/photographer. His news gathering under extreme conditions cost him his life. Most of the online "journalists" you mention are opinionated blowhards with too much time on their hands, eh! what?

"Separating the journalist from the ordinary every day blogger I have come up with a few guidelines. 1) You are a true journalist if you have received three or more threats on your person, such as (I will crack your scull in tiny pieces you Jew bastard) The type of threat Luke receives daily. (2) You are a true journalist if you have been seen running down Hollywood Blvd (past the Hustler Bldg.) the pissed off object of your published insults in hot pursuit. (3) You are a true journalist if you have been barred from every "set" in Tinsle Town (we won't mention what kind of set) (4)You may also be a bona fide jounalist if you use an alias in your writing such as D.U.C....S.U.V....D.D.T....M.B.A."

I got these questions from a columnist working on a story about the ethical issues around naming Kobe Bryant's accuser:

* When did you notice that personal information about Kobe's accuser was online and where?

* Why did you choose to link to this site? Do you know who runs the site or why they posted the information?

* Do you think online journalists should hold to the same ethical standards as their offline counterparts? Why or why not?

* In the Internet age, is it really possible to keep someone's personal information private in the media circus?

* Do you believe people who are putting her information online have an axe to grind and believe she is making up accusations? * Any other thoughts on these issues?

Luke says:

American journalism is sanitized. The Internet is a wonderful opportunity to quote people realistically and accurately. While major newspaper eliminate people's slurs, profanity etc, online you can quote people slurs, profanities, poor grammar, bigotry and all. I think that's great. I do it.

I do not think independent online journalists should have to hold to the same ethical standards as those working for businesses. There's nothing wrong, for instance, in someone writing on his blog about someone he's sleeping with (especially if he makes some sort of subtle indication of the fact). Bloggers sleep with bloggers all day long. No big deal unless you're an Orthodox Jew or Christian. Then you can't partake in the fun.

When you work for yourself, you primarily have responsibility just for yourself. You can take more risks on stories, on getting sued, because only you will have to take the fall. When people work for a business, they represent that business, and they then have to be more conservative in their approach.

The credibility of the owner of binaryreport.com will largely depend on the quality of the information he provides. If it is consistently sterling, he will develop a strong following, even if he remains anonymous.

I think the Society of Professional Journalists' code is often good but sometimes bollocks.

For instance, this admonition: "Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect."

Plenty of human beings are not worthy of respect.

The rest of the code is fine by me, except on not naming putative rape victims.

This is part of the Society of Professional Journalists' code, which applies to online journalists:

Journalists should:

a.. Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.

b.. Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.

c.. Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.

d.. Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy.

e.. Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.

f.. Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.

g.. Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.

h.. Balance a criminal suspect's fair trial rights with the public's right to be informed.

Full code: http://www.spj.org/ethics_code.asp

Deep Inside Cathy Seipp's Home

Cecile du Bois writes: "Mom can be so random and threatened if I ever engaged in inappropriate behaviour with a grown man at the age of fourteen, she would be pissed and obviously take away my blogging priveleges and other stuff I shant go into. I laughed myself to the point where I coughed so hard I couldn't breathe, and she was dead serious. God! She was in the same tone when she asked me a couple weeks ago if I were ever going to engage in sexual intercourse with a colleague at City Beat. "Hell No!" I replied, embarassed that she even had to think of such unorthodox acts I could be doing at such an innocent age. Besides, if I were to, who would it be with? My intern job is mainly filing ads of sorts in some chair for a few hours a day, and the youngest person there is 18 or twenty years old, and a woman. Now, could I be a lesbian? No, since I do have a crush on a teenage boy (fifteen or sixteen, I should say) at the moment I am looking forward to seeing again this fall."


Be sure to check out the current lineup of articles, especially those by the jews and homosexuals. In particular, note the contribution of Judith Levine. Is she the same Judith Levine who recently wrote a book about children and sexuality that was roundly condemned? Read her argument carefully, for it is one that we will be hearing more of as the rot continues.

L'Affaire Kobe Observed

Kevin Roderick has updated his site LA Observed about the Kobe affair. What does he choose to concentrate on? That three of her friends report her boasting at a party about banging Kobe and describing the length of his penis? No. Kevin concentrates on the nasty report that the accuser [Kate Farber] is receiving death threats.

Kevin writes:

You knew it was only a matter of time.

The woman who accused NBA superstar Kobe Bryant of sexual assault received death threats after her name, home address, phone number and e-mail address were posted on the Internet, a friend of the accuser said yesterday.

"She's been having e-mails about people that want to kill her, they want to kill her family," the friend told "Inside Edition."

Luke replies: Making death threats is evil. Receiving them is unpleasant. I know. I've received dozens of them over the years. Anyone who chooses to make himself a controversial public figure, including by such means as accusing a star of rape, is going to bring this on himself. I bet all controversial members of Congress, controversial writers, controversial talkshow hosts, get death threats.

If you never want to get a death threat, avoid infuriating people, and don't do things that will put you in the middle of a public maelstrom. I'm sure Monica Lewinksy got threats too.

Dave Robb, a journalist formerly with the Hollywood Reporter and Daily Variety, sent me several threats in early June, 2003, to inflict grievous bodily harm against me for things I've written about him and his pal Anita Busch.

Here's one excerpt from Dave: "I am going to come looking for you. And when I find you, I am going to put you in the hospital for a long time. I am going to beat you up so bad you will wish you were dead."

Roderick never mentioned this on his site. He made no indications that this bothered him. Nor should he have necessarily.

Unfortunately, death threats are routine. They are the inevitable consequence of threatening people, be it through writing critically or the filing of rape charges.

Roderick is placing this story at the top of his site because he wants to make a point about his views on journalistic ethics, not because he cares about death threats. If Kevin truly cared about death threats, he would've highlighted them on numerous other occasions because they happen every day.

Manager producer Jeff Wald phoned me 9/6/02 at 5:30 PM.

Jeff: "You think it's funny with Medavoy's letter and Anita Busch? You're playing with the wrong people. I want my whole thing down. I want nothing to do with you. I'm fat with a pot belly? Who the fuck do you think you are? I can make you not fucking breathe. Everyone else will be polite and send you a letter like Medavoy did. I'll stop you from breathing. Do you understand me? You can put that up there and quote it. I'm just telling you something right now. We will crush you with fucking lawyers. And that will just be the fun part. That will be the part of your day that you fucking enjoy when you run out of fucking money. Now take it the fuck done. You came in here under false pretenses. Take the whole fucking thing down. And you've got that shitty thing on Anita Busch up there. What the fuck is the matter with you? Do you want to win friends here and get any kind of cooperation? I'll put your name all over this fucking place. I'll send out emails to everyone in this fucking town and nobody will take your fucking calls when I'm finished. I'm just telling you something. You're fucking with the wrong guy here. You put up all the times I've been arrested. They were for assault pal."

From the 8/19/99 issue of Rolling Stone:

When the leaders of the top adult video and Internet companies gathered at a secretive conference in Cancun, Mexico, in the spring, Ford was a prime topic. The owner of a chain of adult stores [Edward Wedelstedt] was reportedly heard saying not only that Ford is a "menace to society" but "no one should worry about him anymore - Luke's going to end up as a spot on the pavement."

Elsewhere in my debate with Kevin, he wrote: "I opted not to send my readers to the anonymous, unsubstantiated site that posted what it alleged to be the woman's contact data."

Luke replies:

So you have it both ways Kevin. You attack the site as unsubstantiated. You attack the site for being accurate with the personal information so that people are sending death threats.

The site listed pretty conclusive evidence and links for most of its data.

As far as it being anonymous, I'm sure you link to some blogs that are anonymous.

The site in question will rise or fall longterm not on the extent to which it meets the elaborate ethics codes of institutional journalism, of which Roderick has been a part for many decades, but on the accuracy and usefulness of its data.

"[t]he friend told Inside Edition."

Kevin talks about how careful he is with his sources. This tabloid show suddenly becomes his source when it is useful to him. The main issue for Kevin in this story isn't journalistic ethics or legal procedure. He cries for the powerless vs the powerful. Because Kobe has more money, and men have more power over women in this patriarchal society, women deserve better than equal treatment in Kevin's worldview.]

It's fascinating how Kevin has linked to at least four stories from friends of the accuser making her look like the victim but Roderick has not linked to ONE STORY that questions the veracity of her charges, including the FIVE FRIENDS OF HERS who said she boasted at a party about her sex with Kobe.

I have no side in this Kobe vs girl case. I have no idea who is telling the truth.

I think it is indisputably clear from Kevin's site that he will favor women over men, the powerless over the powerful, the poor over the rich, the "victim" over the alleged "oppressor."

I like you, Kevin, and you've got a terrific site that I'm checking 20 times a day at the moment, but this is not LAobserved. It's LAdistorted according to your ideological lens. And that's just fine by me. It makes things more fun. May you go from strength to strength, and I must buy you a drink when we next meet up as penitence for abusing you so on your own site.

I was asked by an ojr.org columnist if online journalists should meet the same ethical standards as regular journalists. I say no. I don't care much for the term "journalist." It's a way to put prestige and cachet on an occupation that is an open door to a back alley filled with urine (Hunter S. Thompson). I believe in two ethical commands for reporters - do not make things up and do not plagiarize.

Journalists who work for business must meet more details ethical codes than those who work solely for themselves, because those working for businesses representing big money and can't endanger the image of the business nor put it in harm's way of a lawsuit.

As for bloggers, sleeping with sources can often provide you with good information, and it's a lot of fun to boot, though as one who purports to be an Orthodox Jew, I can't avail myself of these indiscretions.

Sgil46: Did anyone make an issue of the unequal use of the word "alleged" in the media? I heard alleged rapist often enough, but not reference to the alleged rape. Also I heard victim but not alleged victim used in ref to Kobe's accuser, and never heard Kobe referred to as the victim or even the alleged victim of a false accusation. Ask that self scrutiny of your adversaries Luke.

They are sneaky and biased and dishonest when the repeatedly call anybody an "alleged rapist" while calling the accuser simply "victim." And if rape were somehow special, how come the instances of homosexual rape go unreported in large numbers? Could it be another conflict in the Leftist mind?

Leftists are NOT liberal, and are about toppling, in their own words, "the establishment." They simply make use of the liberal's inclination to fret for the underdog in society, and have become masters at keeping the liberal's mind unconcerned about the inconsistencies -- such as their use of the power of the media to level individuals and individualism, which is the ultimate REVERSAL of the underdog sentiment.

As liberals become disillusioned with the Leftists, and become aware of how the Left makes use of liberals, they have become the fastest growing element of the new right. There is a growing on the right because of that flight. Stupid liberals are all that will remain as time goes by. Who will be the last stubborn liberal? Name which of your current adversaries you think most likely to achieve that "honor."

Luke says: Michael Kinsley. The New Republic crowd.

Keen Insights From A New York Liberal

A New York Liberal (guess who!) Who Favors ZPG (zero population growth) and Who Marched in Selma Writes:

I just had a great idea. The government should give every one of the women (ages 18 - 38) of those peoples we don't need more of, free kittens to raise. Moreover, INS guards, posted at our frontiers with the third world, should hand each female a cat to care for on her way back to her dusky third world sewer.

[Khunrum writes: My Dear Amalek, in the countries I visit that cute little kitten would go right in the stew pot. That is no joke. My girlfriend's younger sister's plump six month old puppy made a nice Sunday din~din for unknown neighbors some months ago.]

The Kobe Bryant thing is not an issue to those who favor mechitzas between men and women in public life, or who do not approve of a white woman going to a black man's hotel room under any conceivable set of circumstances. And I mean that literally. Let us not mince words here. All of this relates to the issue of MISCEGENATION. Kobe and his betrayed white wife (she sure isn't black) are miscegenationists.

The core issue in need of discussion is this: is miscegenation a good thing or a bad thing? Considering just blacks and whites, there are four classes of people to consider:

1. Black Men. They can make out like bandits, as miscegenation provides them with a much larger pool of beautiful women to dip into.

2. White Women. They too gain, as miscegenation increases their choices. So, to the extent that they can further satisfy their lusts for the often well muscled and well endowed black man, white women benefit. (As an aside, I think Jewish women, in particular, should be even more open than they are to adding some Negro blood to the inbred jewish line for some good old fashioned hybrid vigor. Anyone familiar with the physical stock of men in Jewish yeshivas knows of what I speak.)

3. White Men. HATE IT, as it increases the competition they have for the women they want, since by and large white men DON'T desire black women. (The preference for men of all races for lighter skinned women is well documented. High status black men, for example, take lighter skinned black women as mates far more frequently than random chance would dictate. And before you start calling me a racist for writing this, blacks have written on this topic more than anyone else.) White men LOSE.

4. Black Women. This is the one group that suffers the most from miscegenation. While white women have the option of dating from among many fine white men OR the black men out there, black women do not have the option of dating white men. As noted above, most white men just are not interested in black women (what miscegenation white men do these days is with asian women). So every black man who passes over all the sisters for a white women dooms a black woman to a life without a man, which of course is very disadvantagious. And there are few enough black men for them to pick from as is (what with so many being ensnared in our prison system). BLACK WOMEN LOSE

What I wish our elites understood is that when Black Women as a group lose, society loses too. The children that the black woman bears are being raised without a husband around to help care for them, which increases the number of social pathologies in that population generation by generation. (Pat Moynihan wrote about this almost 40 years ago.) And when a black child is ill-raised for want of a father, he is more likely to become a black man who rapes white women, uses drugs, fires guns, and otherwise causes problems for the rest of us.

The key to success for black americans is a stable family structure, and miscegenation, by making the task of finding a husband that much more difficult for black women, undermines that structure.

In marrying a white woman, Kobe Bryant was being selfish. But nobody cares about the plight of the Black Woman except Luke Ford.

Is Kobe's 'Moral Bank Account' Overdrawn?


A nationally syndicated talk-show host [Dennis Prager] -- one of the conservative voices, but one whose show is based in Los Angeles -- was talking about the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case Tuesday and pushing his concept of the "moral bank account" as his rationale for favoring Bryant's version of events rather than the accuser's.

[Baloney. Prager did not favor any version of the events.]

The idea being that all of Bryant's positive, uplifting, clean-living, family-honoring, God-fearing acts -- or yours or mine -- amass like a passbook balance, offering proof positive, literally, that someone has been a good person. Good people, the logic follows, generally are not prone to criminal acts, and so on, and so forth.

Mike Tyson, for instance, had no public balance in his moral bank account -- he was morally bankrupt -- at the point when he was accused of raping Desiree Washington. Thus, the radio host said, it was easy to believe that Tyson was guilty of the crime.

But Bryant, well, his single-minded pursuit of excellence, his dearth of tattoos, his refusal to cultivate a so-called street cred, his manners, his thoughtful answers in interviews and his knack for simultaneously seeming hip and unhip, built up a stash of moral currency worthy of Fort Knox.

Alleged Victim ‘Bragged’ At Party About Doing Kobe

EAGLE, Colo., July 22 — The 19-year-old woman [Kate Farber] who accused Kobe Bryant of sexually assaulting her attended a party just days before charges were filed against Bryant and appeared to be in a good mood and “bragging” about the incident, several teen-agers at the party told NBC News on Tuesday. Another friend told the Associated Press that the woman had “visible evidence” of the alleged attack a week later.